Over a decade ago Joe Engers of Decoy Magazine and I had discussed the idea of me writing two articles; one on Obadiah Verity and the other on Thomas H. Gelston. After doing a small amount of research, I came to the usual dead ends and lack of documentation. I decided not to do the articles primarily due to the fact that I could not find anything new to add to the “stories” of the two supposed carvers, and I had not at that time done any serious research. The only thing I could add from what I was able to discover was that things did not add up and at that point in time I was not ready to point out the the discrepancies in the stories presented for the supposed histories of the “Verity”and “Gelston”decoys. However, this small amount of research opened my eyes a bit and I became increasing skeptical about many of the decoy stories being told.
In the book Modern Research by Harry F. Graff, he writes “It is from historical study that writers at large have learned to sift evidence, testimony, and demand verification.” He goes on to state “Journalism has adopted the ways of historical research.” "Magazines like Time and Newsweek employ corps of persons who bear the title of researcher and whose function is to verify every statement made in the stories turned in by those whose title is reporter.” Unfortunately, fact checking has never played any meaningful roll in decoy journalism in either the books, magazines or in museums such as the Shelburne Museum in Shelburne, Vermont and The Long Island Museums at Stony Brook on Long Island, both of which have extensive decoys in their respective collections.
The Gelston myth is just another glaring example of fiction presented as fact, beginning over sixty years ago and by now is totally ingrained as fact in the minds of today's decoy collectors. The latest update on the Gelston legend came in 2002 when writer/author Richard Cowan wrote a cover article in the January/February issue of Decoy Magazine on Gelston (The article I was unable to write). Mr. Cowan, as with most decoy writers, has never suffered from a need for “verification” as seen in his article aptly titled “Thomas H. Gelston, the Name Behind the Legend" (Legend: story, fiction, fairy tale, fable, folklore). This obtuse article is just another culmination of myth, legend, misdirection and omission. It is a fable filled with unfounded so-called facts. The article is in fact an assault on Long Island decoy history by a repeat offender, but he is not alone.
In the not to distant past yours truly was guilty of passing on unfounded myth as fact (see Decoy Magazine May/June 1999 page 24 “1899 A Look Back”). In this article I used non-researched material presented as facts that I had gleaned from earlier publications, just as most decoy writers have done in the past, and still do today.
Once again we begin our story of the legend of the name “Thomas H. Gelston, decoy maker” with Joel Barber and his book Wild Fowl Decoys. On page 50, plate 43, we find a Barber watercolor of a “CORK BLACK DUCK by Thomas Gelston Quogue L. I. 1897." On page 124, he writes the following, “Progress in the making of cork decoys is indicated by the Thomas Gelston black duck shown in Plate No.83 made at Quogue, L.I. about 1897." This is the springboard for the Thomas H. Gelston name to be used in association with decoys said to have made by him in Quogue, Long Island by Barber. It must be stated upfront that there has never been a Thomas H. Gelston residing in the town of Quogue, Long Island, period. He didn't own property in Quogue and the name has never been recorded on any Federal Census as having lived in Quogue. In Cowan’s article he states “The trail of the Legendary Thomas Gelston is easily followed." If by trail you mean the life of the man Thomas H. Gelston, born in 1850 in Brooklyn, NY, then I would agree to some extent that a researcher could follow where he lived, his occupation, who his wife and children were, etc. But you can not follow his trail as a decoy carver as Mr. Cowan would have you believe in this statement from his article.
“A Hudsonian curlew by Gelston sat on the top shelf in Joel Barber’s collection and he included that very bird in plate 53 of “Wild Fowl Decoys." “Likewise he shows a cork black duck captioned “made in Quogue, circa 1897." In the first part of this paragraph, we find a great omission of fact and smooth misdirection concerning the curlew decoy. True, the Hudsonian curlew is found in plate 53, however, it is not listed or attributed to Gelston. It is pictured with two other birds that are identified, one of which most assuredly is misidentified without any question or reservation. However, the Hudsonian curlew is not identified or even mentioned in the text, and it most assuredly is not listed as being made by T. H. Gelston. Mr. Cowan would misdirect the reader into believing the bird was identified by Barber in his book as having been made by Gelston. Yes it is “an easy trail to follow” if you omit facts like only the cork Black Duck was identified in the book as a decoy made by Gelston. But then it would be hard to write that “the trail was easy to follow” and in fact it would make it harder to write the article in a convincing way.
Why did Barber attribute only the black duck to Gelston and why did he attribute that particular black duck decoy to Gelston? It’s not explained in the book why he thinks Gelston is the maker of the bird. As a mater of fact, there is nothing about Gelston or his life in the book other than what is stated above. I don’t recall ever seeing the decoy so I can only speculate, which is something I don’t like to do, however, I do feel the most likely reason was that the decoy had the T. H. G. brand on the keel. These initials are said to stand for “Thomas H. Gelston." A man named Thomas H. Gelston may have hunted over the birds with that brand. Decoys with this brand may very well have come from a rig of decoys owned by Gelston. However, isn't it feasible the T. H. G. might stand for someone else with those exact same initials?
A Thomas H. Gelston did live in Brooklyn. This can, and to some extent has been documented. He may have even hunted duck in Quogue. But he most assuredly never lived in Quogue as has been stated in the past. There is no documented record of anyone with that name living there at any time during Gelston's life. The late Quogue historian Mrs. Pat Shuttelworth had searched town records for anything on Thomas H. Gelston and another Quogue decoy making legend/myth, “John Dilley." She came up empty on both names.
What would the brand T. H. G. mean anyway? As decoy collectors know a brand shows ownership, not necessarily the maker’s brand. In fact most of the time it is not the makers brand found on decoys, especially if the maker made birds for sale to hunters, as was pointed out by decoy collector Jim Doherty in a letter to Decoy Magazine September/October 2005, where he supports our assertion that most of the Bunn Decoys he wrongly refers to as “Bowman decoys” donated to the Museums at Stony Brook by the Herrick Family were first owned by a T. F. Norton and could not have been bought by “Grandpa” Herrick directly from the maker, as stated by the family legend. Doherty states, “I do not believe that the “T. F. Norton branded Bowman decoys symbolize anything other than ownership; they were probably owned by a 'T.F. Norton' before they became part of the Herrick rig.”
After Barber’s mention of Gelston in his book, we next find Gelston’s name associated with the duck decoys are birds said to have been made by him displayed at the 1959 exhibit “Wildfowl Decoys” presented by Suffolk Museum at Stony Brook. All the decoys that are attributed to Gelston in the exhibit are duck stool and all owned by Rab Staniford of Quogue. But the next real layer of the Gelston legend was laid down but by who else, but those great spreaders of decoy knowledge, William J. Mackey Jr. and Adele Earnest in their books printed in 1965. However, it was definitely Mackey who was doing the heavy lifting. It was he who built the foundation for all the rest of the the writers who would come after him to build their Gelston stories on. This text is found in the book American Bird Decoys by William J. Mackey (1965), On page 74, plate 53, is a photo of "two Yellowlegs” The lower bird in the photo is said to be “by a talented unknown maker.” It would be identified today as a “Thomas Gelston” decoy but not by Mackey in 1965 however on Page 99 plate 82 we find a wooden curlew that ia identified as a Gelston,on the same page in plate 81 is the photo of three cork Yellowlegs, Text: “Cork Greater and Lesser Yellowlegs, the work of that excellent sportsman carver, Thomas Gelston of Long Island. Abercrombie and Fitch, the New York sporting goods store carried these birds as a stock item. The ones illustrated were purchased there in 1916.” Here we have more classic Mackey loose ends. Who was it that “purchased” the cork stool in 1916? This would be pertinent to the historical provenance of the decoys. And where is the documentation that a Thomas Gelston made these decoys and sold them to Abercrombie and Fitch (A & F)? I can locate no documentation for this claim. Abercrombie and Fitch sold new and used decoys in their store in Manhattan, so it is possible decoys with the T. H. G. on the keel or other non-branded decoys by this maker were sold in the Manhattan store.
In the 2002 Cowan article, he says empirically that A & F sold decoys by T. H. Gelston. “Thomas Gelston did, however carve decoys and sell them to Abercrombie and Fitch.” He goes on to tell of a rig of birds he and Bud Ward got in 1986 in Newburg, N.Y. he says were owned by “B. M. Higginsworth a Local Banker." Cowan says they were “originally purchased at Abercrombie and Fitch in 1920” By Mr. Higginson. These birds may have been purchased directly from A & F. in 1920, but that does not document them as being made by Gelston. Originally only the cork yellowlegs were said to be sold by A & F. Duck decoys were never mentioned as having been sold.
In 1986, when these decoys were acquired, most collectors called these birds “Gelston's” but to be able to tie them to Gelston you would need documentation from 1920 saying these decoys were made by Gelston. Another attempt to connect Gelston to A & F is this misleading sentence by Cowan, "A selection of Gelston decoys was part of 50th anniversary display at the New York store in 1965." Once again, nothing proves A & F knew of the “Gelston” carvings before 1965. Coincidentally, the same year the Mackey and Earnest books were printed. Cowan fails in his article to document a connection of a Thomas H. Gelston selling decoys to A. & F. prior to 1965.
This A & F display is first mentioned by Mackey in the text he wrote for Milton C. ( Milt ) Weiler, prints "Classic Shorebird Decoys", 1971 Plate 8, Thomas Gelston. The text Mackey wrote is of course totally unsubstantiated, as he offers not a single fact for why he believed Gelston carved and rasped these decoys. The text is filled with Mackey's flowery verbiage as in "Thomas H. Gelston to the manor born" (Guys to the manor born don’t carve decoys, they buy decoys). And his manufactured familiarity with Gelston as in “Even in Tom’s day” it is in this text that he says “Gelston carved many of his shorebirds from cork bark and apparently liked the result. Turning a hobby into a profitable sideline, he sold a stock of cork decoys to Abercrombie & Fitch, the New York sporting goods store, about 1915. They were greater and lesser yellowlegs in both running and conventional positions. At least one rig survived, and Abercrombie's celebrated a semi-centennial anniversary by placing them in their window in 1965.” Could it have been Mr. Mackey who alerted “Abercrombie’s” to the 50th year Anniversary of the supposed business relationship of A &F and Mr. Gelston? And Mackey appears to say Gelston only sold cork Yellowleg stool to A & F, no duck or goose stool. And where had this surviving rig of decoys come from that A & F used in their window display? On the same page in Mackey's book with the cork stool, we find a wooden Curlew plate 82, “Thomas Gelston carved some of the finest shore birds. Several of these Hudsonian Curlews are known to have been made by him. His ducks were well made and adequate,but not outstanding.” This text is the classic decoy writer’s flim-flam text. Still executed by today's decoy writers such as, but not by any means limited to, Dick Cowan. Mackey states that these Curlew decoys are “Known to have been made by him” (Gelston) but what is the documentation used to show why he is entitled to make this claim knowing Gelston made them? Mackey just states it as fact and that makes it so. On page 98 is found the “history” of Thomas H. Gelston by Mackey. “The name of Thomas H. Gelston occurs frequently when Long Island sportsmen are under discussion. Gelston lived the full, rounded life of a gentleman hunter. Sheepshead Bay was his home but the town of Quogue claimed his summers. Apparently a man of independent means, he enjoyed himself to the fullest and turned a hobby into a vocation, making some superb shore-bird decoys along with a goodly number of ducks. He combined a keen practical viewpoint with considerable artistic ability. He and the great Charles Wheeler were the two outstanding amateur carvers. Both of them worked with cork in making decoys for their personal use. For some qualities, such as light weight, cork is very practical. Tom Gelston turned to it when he made the yellowlegs in plate 81. With artistic imagination he happily carved and painted the white pine body of the curlew in plate 82. ( all of the "Gelston" Shore bird decoys that i have handeled were cedar not white pine ) His curlews with wooden bodies are tremendous examples of decoy making, and in original condition rate with the best. For a brief period in Tom’s life it is known he made limited numbers of shore birds which he sold through the New York sporting goods store of Abercrombie and Fitch. That being the case, examples of his birds could turn up in the most unexpected places.”
Mackey says he sold “a limited number of Shore birds.” Cowan omits this part in Mackey’s text, thus he is able to tie the “Gelston” cork duck stool to A & F. Where Mackey had said only the cork shorebirds were sold by the store. These duck decoys may have come from A & F, but this does not mean a man named Gelston carved them. A & F sold used decoys along with new stool. These decoys were gunning stool sold to hunters and early 20th century gunners who didn’t care who made the decoys, only that they worked, and if the gunner’s knew who the carver of the decoys were, they could bypass A & F. It would not be in A. & F.’s financial interest to let their customers know who their decoy makers were. This paragraph in Mackey’s book presents pronouncements that are both vague and unsubstantiated as in this description of Gelston, the man where he says he is. “Apparently a man of independent means." This would seem to indicate he did not know who the man Thomas Gelston really was. It would appear that what he presents as facts for Gelston the man is only hearsay picked up in his travels on Long Island and no verifiable documentation is provided the reader or researcher.
In the famous Mackey Auctions held by the Richard A. Bourne Company of Hyannis, Massachusetts in the early 1970’s following Mackey’s death, we find cork shorebird decoys listed by Thomas H. Gelston along with other birds that would be called Gelston’s today, that are not listed as by T. H. Gelston, as with lot 319 session III August 21 1973 “Fine Eastern Shore Curlew.” This bird would be listed by today’s collectors, dealers, and auction houses as a resting Thomas H. Gelston Curlew. In the fourth session on October 20, 1973, on the same page we find lot 200 “Rare Cork Greater Yellowlegs Decoy” “By Thomas H. Gelston.” Lot 206 “Rare Feeder Yellowlegs,” the maker of this decoy is not identified, however today it would be described as a Rare Feeding Yellowlegs or Willet by Thomas H. Gelston so in early 1970's what were identified as"Gelston Birds" had not fully solidfied.
In Adele Earnest's book The Art of the Decoy (1965), are found plates 36 and 37. Plate 36 is “Dowitcher Feeding By William Henry Weston Duxbury, Massachusetts, c. 1915 in the (Collection of Winsor White Duxbury Massachusetts).” This decoy would called a “Gelston” today. The same bird is pictured in American Waterfowl Decoys by Jeff Waingrow, (1985) twenty years later, listed as “Attributed to William Henry Weston Duxbury, Massachusetts c. 1890 Length, 8” (note the different date and it is only attributed to Weston). Plate 37 of the book is “Godwit and Yellowlegs.” The text reads they are by Thomas Gelston, Quogue, New York (Collection of William J. Mackey, Jr., Belford, New Jersey).
Over the years the bud of the Gelston Legend grew. In 1972 when Mackey’s Paramour Quintina Colio published American Decoys, she shows a photo of the Mackey collection cork shorebirds that had been pictured in Mackey’s book. Her text states “Though he painted and carved some of the finest shore bird decoys (see frontispiece), (the cover bird is a turned head curlew attributed to Thomas Gelston), she goes on “Thomas Gelston produced these primitive cork snipe commercially, for Abercrombie & Fitch and other sporting goods stores.” What other sporting good stores? Where did this come from? Cowan liked it and used it in his article as if it were an established fact, It's not.
In 1979 the bud of the Gelston Myth burst forth in full flower and again it is thanks to the Museums at Stony Brook’s publication Gunners Paradise where on page 24 in the section on “Long Island Carvers” we find “A Trio of Greats” listed as “Thomas H. Gelston, William Bowman and Obadiah Verity.” Strike three you’re out. This section on the “Trio of Greats”should condemn the Museums credibility on any historical pronouncement found in their book. For none of these hailed “Greats” have documentation showing they even carved decoys , which of course means there is no documentation for them carving the decoys that have been attributed to them in the past. I don’t know who made those attributed to Gelston or Verity but I have the documentation that shows the “Bowman Decoys” were in fact made by Charles Sumner Bunn from the Shinnecock Indian Reservation Southampton, N. Y. Mackey’s “Bowman” attribution is just one more example of Mackey getting it wrong in by bypassing real research for an easy attribution.
Mr. Cowan’s article references “Jane Townsend History Researcher” and author of the book “Gunners Paradise” in his article. He writes “Jane Townsend in her catalog of the Stony Brook exhibit that opened in 1987 wrote a short account of what is known of the man himself. Her research was extensive and her correspondence about Gelston was voluminous. Unfortunately it is largely one-side. She received precious few responses to her queries and little information.” This lack of of information on Gelston should start the of bells of skepticism ringing for any researcher, including both Ms. Townsend in 1979 and Mr. Cowan in 2002, and all the other writers on "Gelston" in between.
So what does Ms. Townsend say about Thomas Gelston in “Gunners Paradise” after receiving so “little information” in response to her requests for one of her “A Trio of Greats” Obadiah Verity, William Bowman, and Thomas H.Gelston. Of “Thomas H. Gelston…she says “Of the three, considerable documentation exists only on Thomas H. Gelston (1851-1924)who's family can be traced to the Revolutionary War.”
If Gelston has the most documentation of the three it bolsters what my research has produced which is there is no evidence to link any of these “Names” to the decoys they are said to have made. Having lineage going back to the time of the American Revolution is not documentation that a descendent carved decoys. Thomas Gelston's ancestors are well documented, that he made decoys is not. She goes on to say he was the son of “George S. Gelston early resident and developer of Brooklyn’s Bay Ridge section, who married Marie Meinnell of Oyster Bay.” A constant feature in the Gelston legend is the hotel story, “The Fort Hamilton Hotel” the family was supposed to have owned and operated in Brooklyn. I have found no evidence of the Gelston family owning a hotel in Brooklyn, New York, and I have found no evidence there was a hotel called The Fort Hamilton Hotel in Brooklyn.
Townsend states in Gunners Paradise (1979), “They lived in a large Tudor mansion overlooking the Narrows. The Fort Hamilton, a resort hotel owned by George Gelston, was patronized by New Yorkers wishing to escape the city and it’s summer heat for sea breezes.” Gene & Linda Kangas state in their book Decoys A North American Survey (1983), “Thomas H. Gelston (1851-1924) of Bay Ridge grew up in a family-owned resort hotel on the South Shore of Long Island.” In the Sotheby’s /Guyette & Schmidt catalog of the Dr.James M. McCleery Auction 2000, the following information is listed, “Thomas Gelston (1851-1924), his parents owned the Fort Hamilton, a seaside resort hotel." Later we find “He carved brant, black duck, merganser and shorebird decoys for his own use and apparently sold some cork- bodied shorebirds through New York’s Abercrombie and Fitch in his later years.” In Cowan's Decoy Magazine article in 2002 he states, “George married Marie Meinell of Oyster Bay, Long Island and appears to have been a very successful business man. He operated a resort hotel named the Fort Hamilton and aquired considerable property in Brooklyn.”
Each one of the above quotes mentions a Fort Hamilton Hotel owned by George S. Gelston, however if you read George's obituary of March 7, 1890 in the New York Times it says "George S.Gelston largely known in real estate circles and extensive owner of real estate in the town of New-Utrecht died yesterday at his residence in Fort Hamilton." It goes on to tell that a large section of the Village of Fort Hamilton ”While in his possession it was laid out and sold in small parcels.” Also found in the New York Times of June 23, 1918 is the sale of Gelston Estate It says that “the Gelston Estate of 123 lots and several private dwellings including the old homestead will be sold at public auction." It says “George came to Fort Hamilton in 1836 and bought the property on which was located the old Hamilton House.” It says the House was used during the Revolutionary War by both General George Washington and British General Lord Howe. It also says the house burned in 1852 and that “the Gelston homestead was erected near the same site. It has been the home of the Gelston family ever since."
In the February 2, 1860 Brooklyn Daily Eagle we find an article stating that George S. Gelston sat on a review board accepting bids from contractors for the grading of Third Avenue New Utrecht from Bay Ridge to Fort Hamilton (Brooklyn). The Brooklyn Eagle Feb 4, 1900 “Property On The Water Front” Tells of the Gelston Family’s Holdings in The Fort Hamilton section of Brooklyn and it describes their residence as “the family mansion." The Brooklyn Eagle August 20, 1901 “Surface Sewage Creates A Nuisance." “The chief complaint emanates from Mrs. G. S. Gelston a well known resident of Fort Hamilton, who owns and occupies a beautiful home, on the Shore road at the foot of Third Avenue.” It would seem highly unlikely that the Gelston home was a hotel and there is no mention in any of the articles about George Gelston running or owning a hotel in the area. The article states “the home” George built was where the family lived so, Thomas could not have grown up in a hotel owned by his parents. George S. Gelston made his money in real estate. If George ever owned a hotel, I have not been able to find the proof for this claim or even that a hotel named the “Fort Hamilton” ever existed in Brooklyn. Just as with the Abercrombie & Fitch story, no documentation can be found. And if the Gelston’s did own a hotel in Brooklyn that would not have any bearing or offer any proof that Thomas H. Gelston from that family of Gelstons carved decoys.
What may have been the germ of the hotel story is most likly"The Gelston House" tavern, hotel, and dineing establishment in East Haddam,Connececticut.From Gelston Archives by "Sean M.Gelston" "The site of the Gelston house dates back to 1736 when Jabez Chapman was granted a tavern licence." It goes on to say that the grandson of Hugh gelston a William Gelston bought the place and recived a tavern licence in 1785 it passed from the family in 1826,It "was repurchased in 1853 by a group of investors"one of the investors was "George Sears Gelston son of the above William Gelston." (William is a listed well known Silversmith who once had a shop in Manhattan) To day you can dine at the eligant Gelston House in Haddam Connecticut . So it would appear the only association the family had with a hotel was in Connecticut not Brooklyn and not the "Hamelton House" The Gelston House, and none of it has any thing to do with the making of decoys.
As you dissect The Gelston legend you find many facts about the Gelston Family’s history, but nowhere do you find any evidence he carved decoys. Why is it that I believe Thomas Gelston was not the carver of the decoys in question? The primary reason for my skepticism is the total lack of any evidence indicating he carved decoys, other than undocumented and unreliable sources, the overall shoddy research done in the past and present, including including the 2002 Cowan article for Gelston. Secondly, it’s Mackey’s lack of credibility when it comes to identifying decoy makers which is totally lacking in verifiable research. This is evident in all his published works. He attempts to gild the un-gilded lily with a “story” and most likely in the Gelston case, by manipulating and omitting facts so as to be able to cobble together a vague story, as have all the other writers who have followed using Mackey’s shaky foundation myth for their writings, adding little undocumented pieces of myth to the legend. Thirdly, all the articles as well my research points to Mr. Gelston being rather well off. Generally wealthy people don’t carve decoys, they buy decoys from people who are less well off or from companies like Mason. And fourth, there are a lot of “Gelston” decoys on the market today I can not imagine how many oyhers were destroyed over the years. Many are found without brands, others are found with brands. I know of at least three other brands found on the floating stool other than T. H. G. These factors would indicate that who ever made the decoys we have called “Gelston’s” spent a lot of time making decoys and whoever made the decoys that we have attributed to Gelston would have been someone who made a good portion of his income making hunting decoys to sell to gunners. A wealthy Mr. Gelston is in my openion an untenable candidate. And the amount of decoys made flies in the face of Mackey's statements of the low amount of decoys he was supposed to have sold though A & F. It would not make sense that the wealthy Mr. Gelston carved all the other decoys on the market. He was busy being wealthynot carving.
On February 24, 2002 at the Long Island Decoy Collectors Association annual decoy show featured the decoys of Thomas Gelston in the annual exhibit billed as “First in a Series: The Long Island Masters, Thomas Gelston.” Along with the “Gelston decoy” exhibit, the association had commissioned local artist Vito De Vito to create a painting of Gelston working in his workshop to be made into prints to be sold, along with the original painting, to recoup the money spent on the original painting, the price of the print, and raise funds to print a book on Long Island decoys. There were two major problems with executing the work; no one knew what Gelston looked like, there were no photos of him known to the members of the association. The second problem was no one knew what his “workshop” looked like or if he even had a workshop. At the time I was carving a lot of “Gelston Style”shorebirds. Somehow it was decided I would be the model for the painting. Vito came to my shop in Eastport, Long Island with fellowLong Island Decoy Association member Ray Geminski. Ray who photograph me working on a “Gelston Style Yellowleg.” I had prepared for the shoot by bringing a bunch of “Gelston style” birds I had started along with sheets of natural cork, white ceadar blocks, shot boxe's, and an old basket with some of my finished “Gelston Style" shorebird decoys. We arranged everything and as I started to carve. Ray Geminski took many photos of me at work from every angle. Vito did the painting and it was made into prints. Since Gelston’s features were unknown, Vito painted me with most of my face covered by a straw hat. To see the final results see Decoy Magazine, March / April 2002, page 16 or the Guyette & Schmidt auction catalog for April 25 & 26, 2002. I believe the print is rather awful, but most of the blame should not be put on the artist. The painting was built by committee with association members demanding features be added that they thought should be incorporated into the painting. I feel the worst of these elements is the last minute slipped in dog (more like a dog head) that someone in the club had insisted on. The non “Gelston” duck stool used in the background interior of the shop is perplexing to say the least . This project was Show Chairman, Timmy Seiger’s brain child and it was a financial disaster for the club. Few prints were ever sold, the original was never sold, and appears to have disappeared. The association eventually forced members to take prints for free just to get rid of them which upset members who had paid the original unrealistic retail price of $100.00 for something the officers were now giving away.
So who was this Mr. Thomas H. (Henry) Gelston? The documentation printed below on the Gelston Family of Brooklyn will only be more documentation on Thomas Gelston and his relatives. It will not contain any documentation on Thomas Gelston hunter, decoy user/owner, or carver. The reason for this is no documentation that pertains to any of the above-mentioned activities could be found in my research. My searches turned up nothing other than circumstantial "evidence", namely the “T. H. G.” brand found on some duck decoys to indecate any relationship between the man and the decoys with that brand brand .The man Thomas Henry Gelston came into the world on the 22nd of August 1850. In October of 1875 he would marry Elizabeth De Baun Van Blarcom. His daughter Lillian was born in the same year. Their son George S. (Sears) Gelston, name for his Grandfather came along on October 23, 1879. Thomas H. Gelston would pass away on February 20, 1924. His services were held at the home of his son George S. at 467 82nd Street, Brooklyn, Sunday March 2nd at 5:00 P.M., Service Private (from the New York Times). Nothing apears in his obituary to tell us of his life or work.
Here is presented some more documentation of his life. He does not appear on the 1850 Federal Census due to his birth coming after the Census had been completed that year, but we do find him on the 1860 census age 10. He really would have not have turned ten until later in the year, but he is listed as Henre T. Gelston. This is where his documentation begins. His father is George S. (Sears) Gelston. On the census he is listed as a “Gentleman.” The stated value of his property is $90,000 and the value of his personal estate (liquid assets?) is valued at $15,000. His family was definitely well off in 1860. The 1870 census finds his father George S. Gelston listed as retired. Thomas is not shown to have a job and he would have been nearly 20 years old at the time. On October 6, 1875 he marries Elizabeth DeBaun Van Blarcom. The 1880 Census has him listed as head of the house, married with two children, and his occupation is listed as Inspector Civil Servant. He has two live in servants. The family also had a home addres in 1888, 1892 and 1896 in Manhattan at 640 Madison Ave. Another address was listed at 1225 Broadway, also in Manhattan.
Mrs. Thomas Gelston (Elizabeth) spent much of her time in Europe. Documentation shows she and her daughter (Lillian) age 5 were issued passports on October 8, 1888. The family lived at 640 Madison Ave New York, N.Y. at the time. She and Lillian traveled back again in 1892 and in 1893. In 1906 she sailed to Europe once again, and from 1906 to 1918 she lived in Belgium, England and New York. By 1918 she returned home because of America’s entry in to World War I. She stated she would living at her Brooklyn residence. In 1920 she applied once again for a passport. Mrs. Gelston was a well traveled.
I have only been able to document Thomas Gelston applying for a passport one time on May 22, 1895, as did his wife Elizabeth. Here he lists his occupation as “Merchant.” He writes that he plans to return about October 10th of the same year. His passport had no photo. Though I was the model for that ill-favored turkey known as “ The Gelston Print” I now know that I in no way resemble Mr.Gelston. A description of him on the passport reads he was 6 feet and 1½ inches tall, gray eyes, nose long and straight, hair light, complextion blond (I think the last two were put on the wrong lines), oval face, forehead medium high. The passports were to be sent to number 6 Bowling Green Street in Manhattan which was and is a part of the financial district. Mrs. Gelston listed her occupation as “Lady” on one of her applications. For Mrs. Gelston to have spent as much time in Europe as she did it would once again to point to people of means.
In the New York Times on Wednesday, January 6, 1896, appears the announcement of the coming out of Thomas Gelston’s debutante daughter Lillian, “Mrs. T. Henry Gelston of 640 Madison Avenue to give a reception on the afternoon of Jan 11 for the purpose of introducing her daughter Miss Lillian E. Gelston." Gelston’s daughter is a debutante and we are to believe this wealthy man is a decoy carver and not only that, but he would have had to have been a professional carver to have produced all the decoys attributed to the him. In the same year on August 6th, we find in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle that George “son of Henry Gelston a wealthy resident on Shore Road” had lost the annual “jib and mainsail” yacht race. George had held the championship for the three previous years. In 1910, Thomas is listed as 59 0n the federal census as living with his mother who is 89. She is listed as head of the house. His sister Maria is 64 and they have one servant. Mrs. Gelston was in Europe at the time. It does not list an occupation for Mr. Gelston. The 1920 Census has his son George listed as head of house. He is 42 and his occupation is ”Clerk Insurance." Thomas is 69 his occupation is as “Clerk Factory." His marital status is listed as widowed (which may be wrong).
The 1922 Brooklyn Directory lists Mr. and Mrs. George S. (Elizabeth Mott) living at 467 Eighty Second Street Shore Road and listed as having a phone. His Father Thomas Henry Gelston is at 9486 Ridge Road, Bayridge. He will be dead in two years. It may be that after T. H. Gelston’s death that a rig of birds he had once owned were sold by his son, maybe to A & F. This is one plausible scenario that could explain the story of his son selling his father's decoys to A & F. but it is only an unfounded possibility. The 1930 census shows George S. Gelston living in New Canaan, Fairfield, Connecticut, age 48, with his wife Elizabeth, also 48, their daughter Lois M. Gelston, and a 24 year old Swedish maid. His ocupation is listed as Senior Engineer, Travelers Insurance.
And so ends this addition to the story of Thomas Henry Gelston. I could present more documentation for the Gelston family and undoubtedly uncover even more information on Thomas H.Gelston however I have found absolutely no evidence for him making or selling decoys, period. He was a man of means and most likely hunted as many did at the time, but like other wealthy sports of his era, he most likely did not carve decoys. A man of means like Gelston bought his decoys from non-wealthy carvers or companies like Mason as previously stated.
The one thing Dick Cowan got right in his Gelston article is found on page 11 in the last paragraph. “Early collectors often left the details in forgotten boathouses in their eagerness to collect the artifacts. And many of the details we know were unsubstantiated tales carried as birds changed hands through those early years. Legends abound paticulary on Long Island legends Bowman, Verity, Southard, Dilly and Thomas Gelston. We can surely enjoy the decoys. Yet the discovery of long forgotten fact can provide nearly as great a thrill to today’s collectors and historians as finding a snipe under a boathouse floor provided Joel Barber’s generation.” This should have been Dick's opening and closing paragraph in his article, after which he should have written I could find no facts to link Thomas H. Gelston to the decoys that Barber and Mackey attributed to him. But then he could not have written his article. And as I told him in the past “Do your own research Dick don’t just rewrite what everyone else has written before you. You do the research yourself and see what you find.” Dick didn’t like what I had said and responded, “I though I was doing the research." No Dick, if you had done the research or evaluated the previous writings on Gelston, you would have realized there is no evidence that Mr. Gelston was a carver of the decoys.
So as with the “Obadiah Verity decoys” I don’t know who made them but I am fairly certain it was not the “wealthy” Mr. Thomas Henry Gelston. As I was finishing up this Gelston piece, I emailed Dick Cowan to ask him if he could provide me with any real documentation for Gelston as a carver of decoys. So far he has not responded. My guess is he never will because he can’t provide that documentation.
Jamie Reason
For the next chapter I will unravel the short history of the fabrication of the “LaFayette Seabury” shorebird decoys. This one won’t take long as this is a fresh to the market sham.
